Learned and Adapted Behaviors

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, it is, because -- the Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. Evolutionists likely say either there is no God, or that a Creator is not needed. Furthermore, that leads me to a question -- if a person says he believes in God and evolution, how does God fit in to his belief?

No it is not a germane response to my post. My post was about the repetition of failed claims and flawed information and how others are reasonably likely to see those things. I made statements about the Bible, God or the information available in the creation story of Genesis.

Scientists that study evolution and those laypeople that understand and accept it say that there is no evidence for God or about God in the process.

We don't know the specifics of what God did or the specifics of how He did it.

Either you accept that or you have to imagine a God that would make false information available and purposely leave out evidence of His agency to fool people. I reject that as not fitting God as I understand Him.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

(This is in reference to the theory of evolution) -- if the universe created itself, no God needed, then it stands to reason in my mind (not saying other peoples' minds) that living matter also created itself (no God needed). This is what many scientists who believe in the theory of evolution say. So perhaps the next logical question would be, if a person believes in God and also evolution, how does that work? Let me guess. They might think that (1) the universe just happened to come about one way or another, and (2) life began on the earth without a God necessary and developed over millions and millions of years to what we see now. But the question also really is, what about those who say they believe in God but maybe not the Bible, and/or they believe in the Bible but not everything.

No. Scientists do not say that. Creationist say that. It is a creationist claim about what scientists say regarding the science.

Again, you are conflating cosmology, the origin of life, the phenomena of evolution and the theory of evolution. I know you will claim that they are inextricably linked, but they are not. The origin of life is dependent on the origin of the universe only in that it must exist for life to form. The evolution of life is only linked to life on the fact that life must exist for evolution to occur. Evolution is not dependent on a specific model of the origin of life.

There is no evidence of an agent, God or any other, for scientists to make testable hypotheses or draw conclusions on. They can only report the fact that there is no evidence for God or the actions of God. This doesn't say that God exists or does not exist. Are you suggesting that scientists toss out ethics and start making claims without evidence?

That is a questions that seems like it is treading on very unstable and dangerous ground where some people that believe are claiming to know what others believe. With one side declaring that the other are false. We are not going there. There are aspects of the practice of your religion that I do not care for, but I do not have the ability and cannot say that you are not Christians just because of my dislike. I would not recommend anyone start feeling out a position like that either.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. Scientists do not say that. Creationist say that. It is a creationist claim about what scientists say regarding the science.

Again, you are conflating cosmology, the origin of life, the phenomena of evolution and the theory of evolution. I know you will claim that they are inextricably linked, but they are not. The origin of life is dependent on the origin of the universe only in that it must exist for life to form. The evolution of life is only linked to life on the fact that life must exist for evolution to occur. Evolution is not dependent on a specific model of the origin of life.

There is no evidence of an agent, God or any other, for scientists to make testable hypotheses or draw conclusions on. They can only report the fact that there is no evidence for God or the actions of God. This doesn't say that God exists or does not exist. Are you suggesting that scientists toss out ethics and start making claims without evidence?

That is a questions that seems like it is treading on very unstable and dangerous ground where some people that believe are claiming to know what others believe. With one side declaring that the other are false. We are not going there. There are aspects of the practice of your religion that I do not care for, but I do not have the ability and cannot say that you are not Christians just because of my dislike. I would not recommend anyone start feeling out a position like that either.

I think you may have missed my point. It seems from my observations that there are some here who believe in the theory of evolution but also go to church, or have a form of religion. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

No it is not a germane response to my post. My post was about the repetition of failed claims and flawed information and how others are reasonably likely to see those things. I made statements about the Bible, God or the information available in the creation story of Genesis.

Scientists that study evolution and those laypeople that understand and accept it say that there is no evidence for God or about God in the process.

We don't know the specifics of what God did or the specifics of how He did it.

Either you accept that or you have to imagine a God that would make false information available and purposely leave out evidence of His agency to fool people. I reject that as not fitting God as I understand Him.

So allow me to say something here about your comment. You believe that God would not give out false information is that correct? Do you believe there IS a God?

 

[David Davidovich]

Hey, @nPeace. . . Also, do you have a speculation which aligns with your faith as to the reason why all sea creatures living deep in the dark depths of the ocean did not develop bioluminescent light appendages from the top of their heads for hunting prey?

While I'm waiting for your response to my reply to what you stated about birds and dinosaurs, I found this at jw.org about anglerfish. Therefore, from an article called: Who Did It First? (jw.org), Q & A no. 3 says:

3. What questions should be kept in mind as examples of bionics are considered?

3 As you reflect on these complex abilities of living creatures that human inventors have attempted to copy, does it seem reasonable to believe that they happened by chance alone? And happened, not just once, but many times in unrelated creatures? Are these not the kind of intricate designs that experience teaches can only be the product of a brilliant designer? Do you really think that chance alone could create what it later took gifted men to copy? Bear in mind such questions as you consider the following examples:

Also, I find Q & A no. 14 interesting and would like to later discuss "electric fish" in this thread:

14. What are some examples of creatures that generate electricity?

14 ELECTRICITY. Some 500 varieties of electric fish have batteries. The African catfish can produce 350 volts. The giant electric ray of the North Atlantic puts out 50-ampere pulses of 60 volts. Shocks from the South American electric eel have been measured as high as 886 volts. “Eleven different families of fishes are known to include species with electrical organs,” a chemist says.⁠5

And finally we get to Q & A 18 where the anglerfish is mentioned:

18. What are some of the many plants and animals that have lights, and in what way are their lights more efficient than man’s?

18 LIGHTING. Thomas Edison is credited with inventing the light bulb. But it is not too efficient, as it loses energy in the form of heat. Fireflies do better as they flash their lights on and off. They produce cold light that loses no energy. Many sponges, fungi, bacteria and worms glow brightly. One, called the railroad worm, is like a miniature train moving along with its red “headlight” and 11 white or pale green pairs of “windows.” Many fish have lights: flashlight fish, anglerfish, lantern fish, viperfish and constellation fish, to name a few. Microorganisms in the ocean surf light up and sparkle by the millions.

Well, this seems to be the only place where I could find mention of the anglerfish at jw.org, however, this article seems to be implying that the anglerfish's bioluminescence is for the purpose of illuminating their path for seeing. Therefore, do you agree with this assessment, @nPeace?

 

[David Davidovich]

Birds
A thoughtful study of birds gives convincing proof of the Biblical teaching that they are of divine creation. While birds and reptiles are both oviparous, reptiles are cold-blooded. . .

@nPeace, while I'm still waiting for you to reveal where your quote is from, I forgot to mention the other day that the concept that your article makes that reptiles are cold-blooded is outdated: click here: First warm-blooded lizards switch on mystery heat source at will | New Scientist

But bizarrely, it only switches on its heating system at certain times of the year.

The discovery may add to the debate about whether dinosaurs were warm- or cold-blooded, or something in between – a bit like these lizards.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Shows how much you know and where you bury your head.
Have you ever seen a v8 horse powered engine in a scientific paper? How about a barber's hair clipper, and his artistic cuts? Hair weaves? A tailor made jacket?

Those are all engineering. Applied sciences. The science that underpins the tech to make / operate any one of these, is found in science papers.

The engineers wouldn't be able to create these things, without the science that underpins the tech.

It appears science is all some people can see.

Absolutely not.
But proper science is found in science papers.

The link you posted isn't discussing engineering or whatnot.
It's discussing science. If it would be proper science, you'ld be able to link to science papers.

But you can't, can you?
You can only find such things on religious channels, can you?

You seem to think everyone should be a scientist, and everything must be in a scientific paper..

I think science should be in science papers.
Don't you?

For your information, our publications are so widely distributed, they are in places that has no internet.

I really don't care how far and wide your religious missionaries have reached.

They reach people who don't even know what the theory of evolution is. "Theory of Who? What? Evawho?"

It's a real shame that such people are then lied to and indoctrinated into religious fundamentalism instead of properly educated in the science of biology.

They reach University students, Educators, Politicians, Astronauts Physicists, Chemists, Biologists, Prisoners, and yes, the begger sleeping under the apartment steps, and the man living in a cave, or bush.

Everything except science papers, apparently.

Why is that?

What is more, they open eyes of believers in the theory.

And yet, they don't seem to be able to make a single dent in the actual scientific world of biology.

They make an about face... because they are unintelligent? You may want to believe that.
Perhaps you haven't seen the two rock solid publications science teachers cannot argue against.

What publications.
Please link the science papers.

Perhaps, if you do have the time... that is, if you don't go out of your way to avoid contact, you might get to engage a young person armed with that knowledge.

I'll start with reading the science papers and the follow up.
Got a link?

No, right?

The way you avoid information given you on these forums though, I doubt you would want to face a teenager presenting any information to you.
I doubt yo could manage more than... "The theory of evolution is a well established scientific theory." "The theory of evolution is a well established scientific theory." "The theory of evolution is a well established scientific theory."

So do you have a link or not?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Naturally it's not obligated to go into something else but then the question is, why isn't it still evolving?

Evolution is not a process that stops. All species constantly evolve.
Every newborn comes with variation. Every newborn is in competition with peers over limited resources.
The rate of change over time can, and does, slow down and speed up, depending on environmental stability. But as a process it never stops and goes on indefinitely for as long as there are organism that reproduce with variation and which compete with peers.

Fish supposedly evolved to be land rovers but I guess no one has seen fish that don't survive out of water become an organism that survives out of water.

You know very well that such change would take many many many human lifetimes.
Nobody is going to observe processes that take hundreds of thousands and millions of years.

The land mammal that evolved into the current whale did so over 55 million years, for example.


Having said that.... You picked a terrible example.
Did you know that tiktaalik, the infamous "fishapod", was found by prediction?
They predicted the anatomy, the location, the habitat, the age,...

It was a previously unknown species. But because it was known that land life came from sea life through evolution, evolution scientists knew that such "fishapods" (= a fish creature with land crawling anatomical features; a true transitional) had to have existed.

They knew roughly when, they knew in what kind of environment, they knew what it would have looked like. So they searched maps for exposed rock of the right age that used to be the required environment 350 million years ago and started digging.

And found it.


How did they do that? Were they just "lucky" in your opinion?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is that fish are still fish, etc.

..........

How many more times do you need it explained to you that in evolution, species never outgrow their ancestry? Seriously, just HOW MANY times have I pointed this out to you?

Secondly, careful with your wording. Don't confuse modern fish with the vertebrate creatures that land animals evolved from hundreds of million years ago. If you are going to simply call anything with fin-like things that dwell in the water "fish", then dolphins and whales fall in that group also. But off course those aren't "fish". They are mammals.

, and the observation of humans concerning the idea that fish evolved to landlubbers is not absolute by observation.

It is.
Don't confuse "observation" with first hand accounts of processes that take millions of years.
Tiktaalik is an observation. An observation of sea to land animal evolution.

A true textbook example of a transitional, found 100% by prediction.

More than that, there is no evidence beyond speculation

Tiktaalik is anything but "speculation".
It's tangible evidence, found by incredibly accurate prediction.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think you may have missed my point. It seems from my observations that there are some here who believe in the theory of evolution but also go to church, or have a form of religion. Maybe I'm wrong.

Are you aware that the majority of christians accept the theory of evolution?

 

[SkepticThinker]

So far no one, and I mean no one has seen fish transforming by "natural selection" into landlubbers. In fact, the entire idea of fish "naturally evolving by natural selection" to air-breathing landlubbers is ridiculous.

I've linked you to information on mudskippers, which is exactly what you're asking for, about fifteen times now. Still no response, and you still just keep repeating this.
Let us know when you're actually interested in learning.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. Scientists do not say that. Creationist say that. It is a creationist claim about what scientists say regarding the science.

Again, you are conflating cosmology, the origin of life, the phenomena of evolution and the theory of evolution. I know you will claim that they are inextricably linked, but they are not. The origin of life is dependent on the origin of the universe only in that it must exist for life to form. The evolution of life is only linked to life on the fact that life must exist for evolution to occur. Evolution is not dependent on a specific model of the origin of life.

There is no evidence of an agent, God or any other, for scientists to make testable hypotheses or draw conclusions on. They can only report the fact that there is no evidence for God or the actions of God. This doesn't say that God exists or does not exist. Are you suggesting that scientists toss out ethics and start making claims without evidence?

That is a questions that seems like it is treading on very unstable and dangerous ground where some people that believe are claiming to know what others believe. With one side declaring that the other are false. We are not going there. There are aspects of the practice of your religion that I do not care for, but I do not have the ability and cannot say that you are not Christians just because of my dislike. I would not recommend anyone start feeling out a position like that either.

So my next question is, if a person goes to church, how would he explain what or who God is, or if God exists. What do you think?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So my next question is, if a person goes to church, how would he explain what or who God is, or if God exists. What do you think?

I think this thread is about evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So my next question is, if a person goes to church, how would he explain what or who God is, or if God exists. What do you think?

Why do you think that a person cannot accept science and believe in God. There are 2.2 billion Christians on Earth and only about 7 million JW's. So 2 billion 193 million Christians don't follow your particular ideology. Does that mean they aren't believers in God?

There are a lot of Christians that accept science. If you don't want to, you don't have to. It seems ridiculous to me, but go ahead. Just remember, when you argue in the public square, it would be nice if you had some idea about science and what is said from science. And empty assertions can just be ignored.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think this thread is about evolution.

That's what I'm saying. So if a person says or thinks he believes there is a god, and especially if he goes to church or claims to be a Christian, how does God fit in the picture about evolution? and/or creation...yes, it's about evolution and my wondering about it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you think that a person cannot accept science and believe in God. There are 2.2 billion Christians on Earth and only about 7 million JW's. So 2 billion 193 million Christians don't follow your particular ideology. Does that mean they aren't believers in God?

There are a lot of Christians that accept science. If you don't want to, you don't have to. It seems ridiculous to me, but go ahead. Just remember, when you argue in the public square, it would be nice if you had some idea about science and what is said from science. And empty assertions can just be ignored.

So again, I wonder -- sects based on Christianity revolving maybe around the Bible sort of -- how does that fit God in the mix, or do you think that's not a subject worthy to wonder about regarding Christianity and evolution. If the Bible is filled with myths and errors about creation, where, what and who is God?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So allow me to say something here about your comment. You believe that God would not give out false information is that correct? Do you believe there IS a God?

No I do not believe that. I never said I believed anything like that. I said I rejected the idea that God would create false evidence. Do you not read my posts?

It is the choice that creationists must face if they insist that Genesis is a literal recounting of the creation and diversity of living things. If Genesis is true, then all the evidence that we have been finding for the age of the Earth and all the fossil evidence must have been planted. Is that what you believe? What other explanation is there and how do you have to break your back in order to rationalize it?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you think that a person cannot accept science and believe in God. There are 2.2 billion Christians on Earth and only about 7 million JW's. So 2 billion 193 million Christians don't follow your particular ideology. Does that mean they aren't believers in God?

There are a lot of Christians that accept science. If you don't want to, you don't have to. It seems ridiculous to me, but go ahead. Just remember, when you argue in the public square, it would be nice if you had some idea about science and what is said from science. And empty assertions can just be ignored.

I appreciate many things that science has produced or effected. Electricity, for one, vaccines for another. I will take an operation when I deem necessary.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's what I'm saying. So if a person says or thinks he believes there is a god, and especially if he goes to church or claims to be a Christian, how does God fit in the picture about evolution? and/or creation...yes, it's about evolution and my wondering about it.

I don't know. But I'm not claiming to know the mind of God. How do I know that He didn't give us the curious, intelligent minds and senses to learn about the world He created? The message I get from some sources is to ignore, deny or obfuscate what we learn from looking at the world and pretend the evidence we find isn't really there or draw flawed and misleading conclusions about it so that some can be comfortable concluding a literal Genesis.

 

[YoursTrue]

No I do not believe that. I never said I believed anything like that. I said I rejected the idea that God would create false evidence. Do you not read my posts?

It is the choice that creationists must face if they insist that Genesis is a literal recounting of the creation and diversity of living things. If Genesis is true, then all the evidence that we have been finding for the age of the Earth and all the fossil evidence must have been planted. Is that what you believe? What other explanation is there and how do you have to break your back in order to rationalize it?

I'm not sure I understand your first few sentences. But that's ok, because I don't want to get too testy. Have a good one...You've explained yourself about your belief in evolution but I do not wish to antagonize you. Thank you for your explanations. Insects are fascinating, you've helped me to understand or learn more about them.